Animal studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-17 standard review
Sweeteners and gut bacteria (duplicate)
Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota.
Overview
Suez J et al.. Nature 2014 · PMID 25231862 · DOI 10.1038/nature13793
Same paper as A-SOD-09.
Does the study support the specific claim? Partly · Methodological quality: moderate
Plain-language summary
Study explained simply
- What did the researchers want to find out?
See A-SOD-09.
- How was the study done?
Same publication as A-SOD-09 (listed twice by the archive).
- How many people, animals or samples were studied?
Not stated in abstract; Mice; healthy humans
- What was actually found?
See A-SOD-09.
- How large was the observed effect?
Not applicable
- What do the results mean in everyday life?
See A-SOD-09.
- What are the study's limitations?
Duplicate of A-SOD-09
- What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?
Supports C-SOD-07 (duplicate).
- Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?
High.
- What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?
See A-SOD-09.
Scientific in-depth review
1. Full reference
- Authors
- Suez J, Korem T, Zeevi D, Zilberman-Schapira G, Thaiss CA, Maza O, Israeli D, Zmora N, Gilad S, Weinberger A, Kuperman Y, Harmelin A, Kolodkin-Gal I, Shapiro H, Halpern Z, Segal E, Elinav E
- Journal
- Nature
- Year
- 2014
- Identifier
- PMID 25231862 DOI 10.1038/nature13793
- Verification
- verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
- Retracted
- no
- Corrections
- none
- Extent checked
- abstract only
- Conflicts of interest and funding
No COI statement
2. Research question
See A-SOD-09.
3. Study design and population
- Study design
- Animal study – Same publication as A-SOD-09 (listed twice by the archive).
- Population
Mice; healthy humans
- Country
Israel
- Period
not stated in abstract
- Sample size
Not stated in abstract
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
not stated in abstract
4. Methods and endpoints
- Exposure / intervention
NAS
- Comparator
Controls
- Endpoints
Glucose tolerance; microbiome
- Statistical methods
Experimental
5. Actual results
6. Strengths
- See A-SOD-09
7. Weaknesses
- Duplicate of A-SOD-09
8. Risk of bias
- Orienting tool
- none applicable
- Type of assessment
- simplified assessment (abstract only)
- Full formal assessment
- no
- Overall risk of bias
- not assessable
- Rationale
Animal study.
9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation
Not applicable.
10. Relevance to the specific claim
Supports C-SOD-07 (duplicate).
11. Independent contrary findings
12. Transferability to Germany and Europe
High.
13. Overall methodological judgement
Duplicate entry.
| Multidimensional assessment | |
|---|---|
| Authenticity of the source | verified |
| Methodological quality | moderate |
| Risk of bias | not assessable |
| Precision of results | not applicable |
| Directness | indirect |
| Reproducibility | partly replicated |
| Consistency with the overall evidence | mixed |
| Regional transferability | high |
| Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive) | not applicable |
14. Open questions
See A-SOD-09.
15. Linked fact checks
- Artificial sweeteners disturb the beneficial gut bacteria and thereby induce glucose intolerance in animals and humans. – Studies supporting the claim
Use by the Tayebat archive
Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.
- What the archive says about the study
Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card). Same paper as A-SOD-09.
- A. What was actually studied?
See A-SOD-09.
- B. What did the authors find?
See A-SOD-09.
- C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?
See A-SOD-09.
- D. What does the archive derive from it?
Supports 'artificial sweeteners' as UPF mechanism.
- E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?
See A-SOD-09; overlapping citation is not independent confirmation.
- Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
- not applicable